Posted on 05/11/2013 4:53:30 PM PDT by marktwain
Right. But when a new law is enacted there’s a delay before it comes into effect. It’s like “the first day of the month more than 60 days from signing of the bill” or “from the last day of the legislative session” or something like that. I was hoping the bill was already in effect and would save some of the guns we were already looking at from this very “buyback”, but probably not. :(
I don’t agree on the proofing.
The English proofing houses started “Nitro Proofing” in 1904, and the French in 1900, the Eibar (Spain) house in 1910, I think. The Belgian proof house was “nitro proofing” back to 1891 to 1892. One has to look for the proper proof marks, which were different for “proof” vs. “nitro proof,” just as you’d see on a Colt SAA revolver. You have to look for the serial # and the VP proof for evidence of being able to handle smokeless loads.
But even with that, the idea that smokeless has a “much lower” pressure excursion than smokeless powder(s) is a much over-stated claim, IMO. There were experiments with black powder loads over 100 years ago where pressures over 60,000 PSI were generated. Black powder pressures depend on the granule size, the brissiance of the primer/cap and what level of packing you have of the powder charge. Black powder pressures in BPCR rifles can run easily 30K PSI. There were experiments that produced pressures over 60K PSI way back when. So using too fine a black powder grain size can result in high pressures in guns... like using priming powder in a load.
Likewise, smokeless powder comes in a wide, wide array of burning rates. There are now some smokeless powders that come close to the pressure curves of black powder. Black powder isn’t as slow burning as many (most?) people think. It’s actually faster burning than many modern rifle powders. An example of a smokeless powder designed to keep
Remember, in shotgun loads, when you’re loading with smokeless, you’re typically using pistol-speed powders, which are at the much faster end of the burning rate spectrum. This is because you don’t want “high” pressure to follow the wad all the way down the barrel - on any shotgun. This is because once you get a few inches forward of the chamber, the nominal shotgun barrel wall tapers down to .040 to .035”, and on some “best” English guns, you can see barrel wall thicknesses (in alloy steels) down to .020 just behind the chokes. This is why you want a smokeless powder burning fast enough to be completely burnt when the load is back in the thick part of the barrel.
The single biggest difference between smokeless powders and black powder, IMO, is the ability of smokeless powders to be formulated and coated in such a way to keep pressures way up for a very long burning time as the pressure volume is rapidly expanding - ie, “magnum rifle” powders.
Your worries about the corrosion issues on damascus barrels are well-founded, and they’re true for most all shotgun barrels that have been used with black powder, or corrosive primers. I’ve looked down some fluid steel barrels on LC Smiths, Foxes and Parkers which were in really sorry shape from a failure to attend to the cleaning of the barrel using nothing but smokeless powders. Once the pits are deeper than, oh, 0.007 to 0.010, it’s all over. There’s little hope of honing those out and leaving enough barrel wall thickness to contain nominal pressures.
Likewise, I’ve seen the results of high-quality shotguns with very modern steels (like, oh, a Krieghoff K-80) failing due to faulty steel, faulty heat treating and lack of a stress riser on the receiver. I’ve seen pump shotguns barrels rupture due to a wad left in the barrel - it seems so inconsequential to look at that wee bit of flimsy plastic and think “Eh, it should just get out of the way.” Well, maybe not.
Modern steel is no proof against catastrophic barrel/receiver failure if someone didn’t do their homework when heat treating. There are guys shooting damascus barrels every day with sane smokeless loads, and there are guys blowing modern shotguns to heck and beyond with trap loads, which aren’t exactly high pressure. Proof SAAMi loads are up around 18K PSI, nominal modern shotgun loads are from 8800 to 11,300 PSI. “Low pressure” loads are in the range of 6500 to 8000 PSI, and there’s many loads out there for these pressures in loading manuals.
But for all the talk of blown-up damascus guns, I’ve yet to see one. I see guys shooting them from time to time, and they’re quite happy to do so - with complete knowledge of what they’re doing and using suitable smokeless cartridges with reduced pressures.
Now, from my extensive reading of the period of gun manufacturing history of 100 years ago, I can see the start of the “damascus will blow up in your face ALWAYS when you use nitro powders” campaign. It was started as marketing FUD by manufactures who wanted to convert the shooting public to “fluid steel” barrels because they were so much easier to produce. Really nice damascus barrels required four guys at a forge to hammer out. “Fluid steel” - feh. So much cheaper to produce, so much less labor. Greener spotted this early on, and I’m sure this is what resulted in much of his invective against the “damascus barrels are too weak for nitro loads!” propaganda of his day.
I’m this skeptical of the supposed “conventional wisdom” of failures in damascus barrels, because if rupturing damascus barrels were as common as everyone says, we’d see pictures all over the ‘net - the way we do with Glock ka-booms, or Krieghoff K-80 failures, etc. I don’t see the numbers of failures we’re supposed to see. I do see experienced shotgunners shooting high quality damascus barreled shotguns with lower pressure loads in smokeless powder. And I don’t see their guns blowing up. I see several companies making short and low pressure loads explicitly for older guns.
Firearms sometimes fail, regardless of the barrel technology. They fail most often due to operator stupidity. If you want to see some actual data on what it takes for to make shotgun barrels (both fluid steel and damascus) fail, check out the article series by Stephen Bell in _The Double Gun Journal_ from 2006 onwards. It’s highly interesting to see just how much pressure is required - and how the alloy steel barrels fail vs. how the damascus barrels fail.
BTW, for people who want a high(er) margin of safety in shooting damascus barrels, they can tube the barrel. Briley makes (and installs) fitted tubes. So you’d start with a 12ga and end up with a 20 or 28 ga chamber/barrel. You effectively have a barrel within a barrel, from the breeches (which are made from steel) to the muzzle/choke area.
There’s no blanket rule for fine old double guns, every one of them needs examination and prudent operation. But then that’s true of modern arms as well...
I share your disgust at the TV “gun” shows. They’re all morons. Every last damned one of them. As I tell people, “If there’s drama in a gunsmithing shop, take your gun elsewhere. There should be no drama in a gunsmith’s shop.”
I do see experienced shotgunners shooting high quality damascus barreled shotguns with lower pressure loads in smokeless powder. And I don’t see their guns blowing up. I see several companies making short and low pressure loads explicitly for older guns.
Any low pressure loads then had to be custom self loads. Remington, Winchester and the other shotgun shell manufacturers sent out regular flyers warning retailers about how to recognize damascus barreled shotguns and the danger of selling their shells for use in them. They also mentioned that their were shotguns with faux damascus finish barrels and how to determine the differences.
At that time, all factory 9mm was manufactured to the lowest pressured guns the 9mm could be chambered in, the Luger Parabellum and Mauser Broomhandled Autos, even though there were guns that were capable of taking far higher pressures, such as the Browning High Power, the Colt 1911 in 9mm, and even the German design P-38. The manufacturers would not take the liability that went along the chance their ammo would be loaded into a Luger or Mauser. . . so they just didn't make any. Then CCI Ammunition started offering 9mm+P with prominent labeling warning not to load them into Lugers, Mauser Broomhandles, etc., and opened up the market. Then they almost destroyed their business with a bad batch of 9mm+P they supplied to a CCI sponsored Police competition in Arizona where they had some loads with no powder followed with loads with double powder and succeeded in blowing up some of those high pressure guns! Talk about marketing failure! It took so long for CCI to get their reputation back the other makers took over the +P market completely.
The shotgun under discussion was made at a time when black powder shells were still available over the counter, probably pre-1900, and was more than adequate for the loads available. The general public, looking for a cheap shotgun didn't know the difference between a low and high base shell and some of those older guns had longer than normal chambers and could even chamber a 3" magnum shell that was not even contemplated by their makers at the time they were made, and would be eager to buy these as shooters. Federal low base 12 gauge shells were available on sale almost anywhere for as low as $1.29 a box of 25, high base for $1.49, and magnum was around $2.29. My gunsmith was seeing at least three or four Damascus barrel shotguns a year come in with blown chambers because somebody decided they wanted to shoot grampa's old shotgun and bought some shells on sale at the local Thrifty Drug Store. That's where we got our "educational" demo models. I kept them with our 20-12 burst barrels, "mud flower" barrels, and "Shakespeare Sleeve" barrels that we used for our gun safety classes.
I suspect that there are lots of strong, well kept Damascus barreled shotguns out there that will shoot fine with low pressure loads. . . But, NV, my experience at the gunshops I managed is that we saw too many Damascus shotgun failures over the years of even fine makers' products to know which would fail to be able to reliably predict which barrel would fail and which would not without doing tests with a fine grain magnetometer looking for discontinuities in the metal and that costs more than the value of the gun. We also saw some rolled and fluid steel barrels failures, but usually those were the result of operator stupidity... Plugging the barrel, 20-12 bursts, self-load errors, etc. . . rather than materials failures.
My gunsmith did that for some fine Purdy Shotguns that were heavily engraved with Gold inlaid. . . And three Drillings, took a 12/20 to a 20/28 to make them safely shootable and salable. He also did it once for a junk shotgun... a family heirloom that the grandson wanted shootable. Cost five times my appraisal of the value of the gun. We could have sold him a brand new Browning A-5 for what the double reline cost.
Oh, when it comes to family heirloom guns, we both know that the value encapsulated in the gun isn’t measured in mere money. The value there is never about how much the gun originally cost, what the family member who now owns it could get for it, or any of those things. It’s a value that’s deeply emotional and specific to that family, and I never pooh-pooh such things.
On the flip side, I’ve also heard other ‘smiths tell me of a grandson coming in with Gramp’s old 1911 from WWII, and wanting it hacked seven different ways to Sunday with modern gee-gaws put on it, which would crater the value of a very collectable 1911. There, I think a responsible ‘smith should explain (in ballpark figures) that the heirloom is worth, and how much of that value will be lost my making modern mods to it... then, in those cases, I think it is better for owner to think about getting a modern gun and preserving the collectable piece in as-is condition.
I was walking past the “to be done” rack and notice a Winchester model 1892 with a Tasco scope box tied to it and a work order. I examined the gun and found it to be a beautiful gun made in 1895, 97% factory bluing, 100% case hardening, with not a scratch on it. Gorgeous factory checkering on the stock. I called the owner and told him in my estimation that if he went ahead and mounted the $35 scope on the rifle, he’d turn a $2500 collectors item into a $250 shooter including the scope. I suggested that I select a new Model 94 Winchester for him ($99) and have the scope mounted on that. The customer profusely thanked me, came in, bought an upgraded 94 ($179), upgraded to a Leupold scope ($98) and quick detach ringmounting ($45) and I gave him back the 1892 and he paid me for an Appraisal for insurance on it ($35). Total sale $357. . . Instead of $60!
I almost got FIRED for doing all that! Turns out the owner of the gunshop saw the cancelation of the work order and found out I was responsible. HE HAD MADE THE ORIGINAL SCOPE SALE AND HE WAS PISSED! He assumed I lost HIM a $35 scope sale plus a $25 mounting job! He didn’t care what that customer would have told others when he found out what our shop let him do to a valuable antique. He knew nothing about the sales I had made to that customer. . . but I was told to NEVER interfere with his sales again, despite the value of the gun or what going to be done to it. He told me there was always another customer around the corner!
That customer became MY devoted customer and bought at least $15,000 worth of guns from me in the next four years. Had I allowed the destruction of his antique, he would have been someone else’s valuable customer as well as telling everyone he knew how he’d been done dirty by our shop!
The worst scenario of moding I ever saw; it made me literally sick: I was managing the Olde Sacramento Armoury and this kid comes in one day and asked, “Do you buy curios?”
I said, “It depends on what it is.”
He says, “I inherited an old rifle from my grampa, and I made it into a lamp in my metal shop in school. Would you be interested?”
I told him to bring it in.
The next day the kid and his mother show up with the lamp. So help me I almost cried! It was a Winchester 1873 in almost pristine condition . . . with a hole drilled through the barrel for the cord right through the words “One of One Thousand”!!! He had drilled and tapped the bore to take a brass lamp ferrel where the wire went through into a lamp socket. It had a western lamp shade with a stagecoach scene on it! The fine burl walnut stock was screwed to an upright so that a round wooden base could be screwed to it. He was very proud of his workmanship and said he got an ‘A’ on it. His mother told me she didn’t want it in her house. . . it didn’t match her decor.
I told the kid he had taken a fine antique rifle worth $15,000 to $20,000 and turned it into a $1,000 curio, if that. I thought long and hard before I decided not to make an offer on it. It hurt too much to look at it and I just did not want it in my shop or in my collection. I’ve had second thoughts about that now and think I should have bought it, but I HATE industrial strength stupidity like that.
I would have been physically ill upon seeing that. I mean “seriously fighting down the puke.”
And I would have seriously debated what to tell the kid. The dumb-assed teacher let him pull that stunt, possibly even encouraged it. His parent(s) allowed this to happen (because the rifle probably came to the kid via the parents). IOW, I couldn’t place all the blame on the kid unless the gun came to him directly out of granddad’s estate, handed over by a lawyer or executor of gramp’s estate.
It’s said that “genius has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan” but in many cases I see, industrial-strength stupidity had many fathers and mothers, each contributing a fair sized chunk of stupid.
As I’m sure you agree, you’re so much better off not working for unscrupulous people. Sounds like that boss is one of the people that really makes lasting enemies of former customers in the gun business.
But that boss sounds even more than unscrupulous - he sounds like he was downright stupid and egotistical. You turned the rejected scope job into a lot more money on the spot! What more could a business owner hope for? You turned the situation into a HUGE “up-sell” job, and made the customer happy as a clam.
If I had an employee like that, he’d have a serious bonus in his pocket at the end of the week for catching my mistake and turning the situation completely around. Employees that pull rabbits out of hats like that aren’t at all common.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.